New filing in the Jacobs and Hindes case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Third Circuit received Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes’ appeal today and docketed that proceeding at No. 17-3794 as reflected in the paperwork (linked above). More paperwork will be filed in the next couple of weeks.”

New filing in the Jacobs and Hindes case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes delivered their Notice of Appeal to the U.S. District Court in Delaware today, indicating their intent to initiate an appeal in the Third Circuit.”

New filing in the Bhatti case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Schiltz heard oral argument this morning in Minneapolis, and a copy of the Courtroom Deputy’s minutes is (linked above). Judge Schiltz took FHFA and Treasury’s motions to dismiss and the Bhatti Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment under advisement and will issue a written decision. This morning’s hearing was transcribed by Debra Beauvais — who can be reached at (612) 664-5102 — and she will be preparing a transcript. Because a court reporter was on site this morning, the Court Clerk will not be releasing an audio recording of the hearing.”

New filing in the Perry case (U.S. Supreme Court), click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Justice Department says it’s very busy and needs another month to file a response with the High Court in Perry v. Mnuchin.”

New filing in the Cacciapalle case (U.S. Supreme Court), click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Justice Department says it’s very busy and needs another month to file a response with the High Court in Cacciapalle v. FHFA.”

New filing in the Fairholme case (U.S. Supreme Court), click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Justice Department says it’s very busy and needs another month to file a response with the High Court in Fairholme v. FHFA.”

New filing in the Sammons case (W.D. of Texas), click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Sammons delivered a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court last week seeking review of the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the Tucker Act and saying that claims against the government for more than $10,000 are properly handled in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The government’s response is due by Jan. 2, 2018.”

New filings in the Rop case.17-cv-00497-003817-cv-00497-0039
Peter Chapman writes, ‘The Rop Plaintiffs delivered two documents to Judge Maloney today:
(A) a response to FHFA’s filing sharing the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in the Robinson case, pointing out that the Sixth Circuit indicated its ruling might be different if — which Ms. Robinson did not allege — there were a constitutional defect in HERA; and
(B) in reply to their motion for summary judgment telling Judge Maloney that he should “vacate the Net Worth Sweep and strike down the provisions of HERA that make FHFA one of the most powerful, least accountable agencies in our Nation’s history.”‘

New filing in the Rop case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA shared copies of the Robinson and Jacobs decisions with Judge Maloney this morning to further urge him to follow the Perry decision, dismiss the Rop Plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging the Third Amendment, and deny their pending motion for summary judgment raising constitutional challenges to FHFA’s structure.”

New filing in the Saxton case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA lawyer Howard Cayne at Arnold & Porter advised the Eighth Circuit about the Sixth Circuit’s decision to reject Ms. Robinson’s challenge of the Net Worth Sweep based on her APA claims and Judge Sleet’s decision to reject Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes’ state law claims to invalidate the Third Amendment.”

New filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA lawyer Howard Cayne at Arnold & Porter advised the Fifth Circuit about the Sixth Circuit’s decision to reject Ms. Robinson’s challenge of the Net Worth Sweep based on her APA claims and Judge Sleet’s decision to reject Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes’ state law claims to invalidate the Third Amendment.”

New filing in the Bhatti case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, ‘The Bhatti Plaintiffs delivered their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment to Judge Schiltz today pressing forward with their constitution claims, and telling the court that it “should vacate the Net Worth Sweep and strike down the provisions of HERA that make FHFA one of the most powerful, least accountable agencies in our Nation’s history.”‘